Re: THE GENESES OF THE FALSE THEORIES IN PHYSICS

John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:YA+UYJOAUkLHFw86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

bz wrote:
John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
T+G2XXAg4ZLHFwv$@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk:">news:T+G2XXAg4ZLHFwv$@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk:

bz wrote:
John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:yQRes6H $iGLHFwZo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

No, he didn't but for a few hundred bux you can.

Why don't you? Go on make a name for yourself.

If I am right, I don't make a name for myself.

If you are right, you get a Nobel. Go for it.

Come up with a simple
experiment which proves source independence. No one else has managed
it - not a simple experiment that is.

Then formulate an experiment that will.
That is how science works, NOT by carping about things and insulting
people.
Good bye.

Your entire belief system is based upon propaganda.
I work with scientists every day.

So? That doesn't change the fact that you belief system is based upon
propaganda.

My beliefs are carefully formed based upon every day experiences.

Then try studying the facts of history. You live in a community of
believers and will gain comfort from the fact they believe the same as
you.

You look at others opinions of how science works. I look at how it actually
works. I see it work. It does NOT work the way you claim.

Yours are based upon things that you have read

That is called researching the subject My particular area of study is
the history and origins of current theories.

The sources you have given me in the past made claims about how things work
that were not correct.

You trusted your sources. I found them incredible.

and your experiences in non
scientific fields of research.

Don't understand that comment. My field is electronics. I was a research
and development manager before I went freelance as an electronics
consultant.

I too have worked in electronics. Both in industry making resistors and
capacitors, designing resistor networks, writing process specs, overseeing a
production line, later repairing electronic devices, and teaching
electronics. Later operating and repairing computer controlled laser systems,
Later fixing radars and shipboard electronic systems[while being a part time
grad student in Chem and EE], Later doing chip level board repair on
computers and fixing ambient air monitoring equipment.

That didn't make me an expert on how science works.

Working daily with scientists that are doing science was necessary. I have
done that since 1981.



The role of any
scientist is to question, question, question not merely accept what is
dished out by orthodoxy.

I have helped real working scientists formulate experiments to test
theories. I helped them critique and publish their ideas.

Good for you.

What have you ever done that qualifies you as an expert on how science
REALLY works?

It is rare for a submitted article to be accepted without revisions
being required by the publisher. My questions and help enabled
researchers to ANSWER the questions that the publishers would ask before
they were asked. I have seen several papers that I helped with accepted
for publication without any significant revisions. At least one was
accepted with no revisions.

Even though I lack a PhD, I DO have a BS in chemistry with a math minor.
I have been asked to co-author a couple of scientific papers that were
published in well respected journals.

Bully for you. You give yourself a great build-up pity you fall flat on
your face (see below)

We shall see, below. But the tone of your comment shows that you are still
playing the 'oneupmanship game' rather than actually trying to exchange
information in a civil manner. One more such example and I won't care what
you say.


How many scientific publications do you have in your CV?

Most if not all my work is confidential and the client who paid for it
owns the copyright.

In other words, you have never worked as a scientist.


How many PhD candidates have thanked you for your contributions to their
research? How many papers give you honorable mention and thank you for
your valuable help?

The One or two but it isn't part of my job. I have guided many graduates
in the early stages of their career. Teaching them the things they need
to know.

You have not countered any of the arguments or evidence I have put
forward. Historically speaking physics did not work the way science is
supposed to work. Existing theory had been disproved, there existed a
simple alternative theory which was ignored which explained all the
known data, existing theory was patched up ditching two previously
accepted axioms of physics in the process.

Sometime the corrections take some time, but science IS self correcting and
is BETTER at correcting itself than any other field that I know of, except
for the retail business. There, the market will correct things for you. But
even there, there can be long delays and those that are reluctant to look at
facts.

Now it is possible (but in my
view unlikely) that what resulted is good theory but whether it is or it
isn't is irrelevant to my argument that in this instance physics did not
work the way science is supposed to work.

Several times you have made statements which I have shown to be false.
Your way of dealing with it is to snip my posting without comment.

You have not shown me anything pertinent to the case in point: IS Ritz's
theory the correct theory or is Einstein's theory better? History may be your
interest but science is my primary interest.


Do you base your opinions on prejudice or experience?
Which of us has fallen victim to propaganda?

My interest in the history of physics. I am willing to study any
documentation that anyone points me at and revise my views as necessary.
To date all the documents form a coherent picture of Einstein's
thinking.

I don't read German very well. Before I could form an opinion of what he was
thinking I would want to go back and read all the original documents and
notes he wrote.
Have you done so? If not, then I am not really interested in your opinion of
what he thought. If you have a source that has done so, I am willing to look
at that source, but as I said, I am not really concerned about the history, I
am concerned with science.

You said:

That is NOT what Einstein said and you know it.

I went to a great deal of effort to point out various documents showing
that my summery of Einstein's position was accurate.

You cited what others have written and parts of what he wrote. You and I
disagree upon what he meant.

You simply snipped it without comment. I am pretty sure we have been
here before. Showing you the facts does not affect your thinking.

Show me FACTS, not yours or someone else's opinions.

You
will trot out the same prejudice next time we are engaged in discussion.

Likewise you are likely to come out with the statement:

It doesn't matter where the inspiration came from. He specifically
showed that no aether need be invoked.

No one studying the facts and the literature would make that statement.
That is pure propaganda. I have given you a selection of quotes - which
you snipped without comment - but I have no doubt based upon previous
encounters with you that it will not stop you trotting it out again in
future.

I have read his 1905 paper and his 1920 talk and his book. I don't get the
same impression from those documents that you do.


Better men than you or me have looked at the evidence against
Ritz/ballistic theory and found that it is a very very close call.

I agree that it was a very close call. But Ritz lost.

You are prejudiced against the modern theories because they are not
'physical' enough for you.

Despite heavyweights like Ritz and Waldron you believe that I am an
idiot for even considering it.

I don't spend any time on those I consider to be idiots. I suggest that you
should not do so either.

As one of my favorite SF books said "Criticism implies recognition of ability
to perform." from A MATTER FOR MEN by David Gerrold 1983 Pocket Books.
In other words, no one wastes time criticizing the village idiot for his
inability to hold a job because they recognize that is beating a dead horse.

You believe it is a simple matter to
disprove Ritz/Waldron with a simple lab experiment when people have
spent millions on experiments trying to do just that.

I believe it has already been disprove by De Sitter and by MMX and by Sagnac.

I believe the experiment I proposed WOULD disprove Einstein IF Ritz were
right.

I KNOW it will not prove Einstein right. Nothing can do so.


I have seen nothing that you have written that indicates that you have
ever participated in any real scientific research. I have seen nothing
that indicates you have any real knowledge of how science work.

When you can counter my arguments rather than snip them without comment
you may convince me that you know what you are talking about.

When you persuade rather than insult, I will be more willing to listen.

I condemn the things you say, NOT you. I attack the things you say, NOT
you.

If you want to attack what I say do so with counter arguments not with
scissors - you snip my arguments without comment.

When they are not pertinent to what I want to discuss and when the article is
getting way too long, I trim.
If I don't want to make a comment, I don't want to make a comment. That is
all it implies.

You, on the other hand, called me an idiot.
I do not waste my time conversing with those that lack the self respect
that allows (and requires) one person to treat others person with
respect.

I apologise for that but having written at length pointing out your
misconceptions it annoyed me that you simply snipped the lot without
comment.

I wasn't talking about, nor interested in the example you wrote about. It had
nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.
You didn't look at my example, you just set forth your own.

Had I done that to YOU, you would be angry at me and insulting me. Oh, that
IS what you have been doing, isn't it and accusing me of calling you names
that I didn't call you.

I proposed my example FIRST. By your rules, you should have dealt with it.
You don't follow your own rules.


When I make a mistake, I admit it. I try to learn from my mistakes.

No I have pointed out some of your mistakes and you have snipped what I
wrote without comment. Go back through this thread and you will see I am
right. OTOH you will not find a single instance of me snipping your post
without commenting on it. I don't do that I consider it rude.

Are we going to play 'who has been ruder to whom?' or are we going to
communicate?



The proposal I gave you was originally formulated for someone that
thought that the motion of the source continued to influence the motion
of light.

It is the equivalent of assuming that you could guide a bullet to its
target by moving the gun after the bullet had left. The fact that you
didn't advise the person concerned not to be so daft does indicate to me
that you have dismissed Ritz/ballistic theory without having tried to
understand it. Is that your idea of scientific objectivity?

I politely told them that IF their idea was right, then certain things would
happen that do not happen.

In his case, I called it to his attention that we could have faster than
light communications just by wiggling a laser back and forth.
I leave it to others to call his concept 'Daft'. I just pointed out the
implications of his idea.

I think he still clings to it.


The
'curved path' was in accord with his theory and is, as I pointed out to
him, incorrect. However if Ritz were correct, the light would follow a
diagonal path traveling at c wrt the source and would thus travel from
source to detector along the perpendicular path at a slower speed. In
any case (Ritz or Eric or Einstein) the LED is to be pulsed at the exact
position when it is on the line through the axis of rotation and the
detector, 10 meters away. If Einstein is right, the pulse will reach the
detector (a telescope with enough magnification to resolve the LED) 10
meters away 0.033us later and appear exactly in line with the center of
rotation, no matter what the speed of rotation or direction of rotation.

The LED will travel 17um during the 0.033us. The IMAGE of the LED would
be displaced by 17um if Ritz were correct. Since LEDs with diameters of
20um are available, the image would be displace by almost a full
diameter.

The direction of displacement would depend on the direction of rotation.
The above assumes a 10 cm rotor running at 50,000 rpm. Nothing expensive
is required for this kind of a test. Some simple optics, an old
centrifuge, an LED and a way to pulse the LED at the right time.

If you REALLY want to disprove Einstein, you will 1) check my
calculations and 2) run the experiment.

No point. A few minutes thinking about it and I can see why no one would
bother to perform it.

If you want to Disprove Einstein, I still suggest that you try it.


As with most experiments SR and Ballistic theory
predict the same outcome. Basically you have not taken into account the
effect called aberration.

I am WELL aware of aberration. It does not come into play in this case for
reasons that I will explain.

Aberration is the result of the motion of the OBSERVER, NOT of the source.
Ritz, however would predict aberration due to motion of the source.

in any good text book but I will take the trouble to do my best to
explain it to you. It is not an easy concept.

I think you would agree, now we have the curved path nonsense out of
the way that the reason for using a rotating disk is because it is a lot
easier than using linear motion but that in theory it could be done with
an LED on a fast train. I change your experiment into linear motion to
make it possible to draw with the limited drawing capability of text.
You need to display with a fixed pitch font.

T-->v Y





O

Train travelling at v, LED flashes when it reaches Y

With SR the apparent light direction Y-O.

Correct. No aberration.


Your argument is that with ballistic theory:

T-->v Y Y'






O

the light will expand in a circle who's centre will remain with T i.e.
that when the light hits O the centre of the circle will be at Y'.
This is quite correct for ballistic theory.

That is correct, ballistic theory would predict aberration due to motion of
the source.


Your argument is then that the light reaching O is coming from Y' and
therefore will be seen as coming in the direction Y'-O compared to Y-O
for SR. I can understand why you might think that but it is wrong. What
you need to think about is what direction you need to point your
telescope in order that the light goes down it.

That is correct, for motion of the observer.


Let us start by assuming the source is stationary and the observer
moving. I'm sure we both agree with Einstein that we can do that.


NO. In this case, the two situations are NOT equivalent.

They are ALSO not equivalent when looking at stellar aberration for a very
simple reason, the aberration occurs INSIDE the telescope body, NOT during
the time the light spends traveling from star to earth.
I am surprised that you missed that fact.

SR case
X' X
|
|
|
|
v<-- O'---O


In the SR case the source remains at X but the centre of the circle
moves with the observer (remains in the same place in the observers FoR)
so when light reaches O' the centre of the circle will be at X'. Light
is observed as coming vertically down the page.

X' 3 2 1 X
*



| | | | | | |*| | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | |*| | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | |*| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
|*| | | | | | | | |
O' 3 2 1 O

What this shows is a telescope pointing in the vertical direction in 5
successive positions. O where the light sets out 1,2,and 3 at equal
intervals and O' where the light hits the detector. So far so good that
is what you would expect.

Moving the telescope is Not the same as moving the target because the
aberration takes place inside the telescope.

In this case, the target will be moving at 1,885 kph (10 cm x 50,000 rpm x 2
pi for a 10 cm radius rotor) in the lab.
Hard to move the telescope that fast, for sure and no where near equivalent,
in this case for an SR analysis because the center of the rotating wheel and
the telescope are at rest wrt each other. If we move those, it changes the
geometry of the whole situation.

If you don't think the diode can that that rpm, mount it near the center and
use an optical fiber to take the light to the edge of the disk.


Source dependent case
X
|
|
|
|
v<-- O'---O

Light leaves X when it is opposite O. In the ballistic case the circle
will remain centred at X. At time t the circle reaches O'.


X




/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/*/
O' O

What you are expecting is that you will have to angle the telescope in
order for the light to now go down it as shown because the light is
travelling in the X-O' direction. This is the basis of your experiment.

No. You forgot the center of the wheel and the fact that the aberration takes
place in the scope.


Now let us put in the interim stages:

X
*





a /*/ / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
b /*/ / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
c /*/ / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
/*/ / / / / / / / / / /
O' 3 2 1 O

Perhaps you can see the problem? when the light pulse is at 'a' the
telescope isn't, it is at 1 so the light pulse cannot enter the
telescope. Likewise when the light pulse is at b the telescope is at 2
etc. This is the phenomena of aberration. If there is relative motion
between source and observer the apparent direction changes. In this case
the apparent direction is vertical just as with SR. Sorry but it is.

No The telescope is not moving.


X
*



| | | | | | |*| | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | |*| | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | |*| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
|*| | | | | | | | |
O' 3 2 1 O


No.

SR case|, Ritz case /
v<-- S'---E (R)
| /
| /
| /
|/
O



E shows where the source is seen if Einstein is right. The transit time will
be independent of source rotation in the Einstein case.
Rotate either direction or don't rotate, the pulse still take 0.033us
and R shows where he would see the image of the source if Ritz were right. In
the Ritz case, the distance traveled is longer, but the velocity is higher so
the travel takes the same time.
But the direction of the Ritz aberration WILL change as the source rotation
direction changes and the aberration will be proportional to the speed of
rotation.



On the other hand, if you just want to feel good because you are able to
get attention by attacking Einstein and 'the way science works', then
you will continue to do what you have been doing.

I do not attack Einstein I attack the misrepresentation of Einstein, the
distortion of history. I attack the opinions of people like you who have
swallowed re-written history, modern spin, sanitized history and trot it
out as if it were fact not having made the slightest effort to check
their sources.

I disagree.

You gave yourself a great build up in your posting and you have been
dismissive and patronising towards me

I have be more tolerant than most here have been or will be.
Most have you killfiled already.

- so how come I have had to point
out the absurdity of curved trajectories and a basic flaw in your oh so

The absurdity of the curved trajectory is something I had pointed out to
someone else. I just forgot that your model was slightly different from his
and repeated the same argument I made to him.

clever experiment.

And I had to point out to you the absurdity of imagining that motion of the
source and motion of the observer's telescope were equivalent.
YOU forgot that aberration takes place in the telescope and THAT is why the
telescope must be pointed in a different direction.


I will say however that had you done your experiment and falsely claimed
that you have disproved emission theory, because you have not given
sufficient enough thought to what emission theory would actually predict
you would not be the first nor the most illustrious to do so.

I do NOT claim that the experiment will disprove emission theory. I NEVER
claimed it would.

I claim that if Emission theory were correct, the experiment could disprove
Einstein.

Emission theory is disproved several times already so I see no need to run
another experiment, but if you want help running it, I will be glad to help.

--

bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.

Relevant Pages

  • Counterfactual Science History
    ... And that is just as true of world history as ... Charles II had no interest in science and a young Einstein had ... Counterfactual history might sound like a frivolous exercise, ... However humbling for individual scientists, ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Vatican Declares ToE Compatible With Christianity
    ... it goes back to historicity vs. modern history. ... the fact that you ignore science when it contradicts the ... access to any truth. ... Or that scientists are better at metaphysics? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... in history, and therefore the analogy to religion does not hold. ... those aspect of the human condition that are not amenable to science. ... it doesnt matter what you or i or even scientists think "science" ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Flunked the Science Test
    ... No, I'm suggesting that we let scientists determine what is science, just as we let theologians determine what is religion. ... I'm open to listening to other people's opinions, but I reserve the right to reject those opinions when they can't back them up properly. ... When a web site portrays obvious errors as truth, those web sites deserve to be called on their errors and any information that they present that is based on those errors should *not* be trusted. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Flunked the Science Test
    ... No, I'm suggesting that we let scientists determine what is science, just as we let theologians determine what is religion. ... I'm open to listening to other people's opinions, but I reserve the right to reject those opinions when they can't back them up properly. ... When a web site portrays obvious errors as truth, those web sites deserve to be called on their errors and any information that they present that is based on those errors should *not* be trusted. ...
    (talk.origins)